Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
wrote in message news There are none so ignorant as he who would confuse his opinion with facts. Ignatious - 1625 Bruce, you really are quite an erudite fellow . . . Wilbur Hubbard "A fool flatters himself, a wise man flatters the fool." --Edward G. Bulwer-Lytton |
#12
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:15:18 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. (If it fails to pass) Permits would (then) be state(-)run under federal mandate. Sound like lawyer talk to me. |
#13
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:15:18 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: "Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. (If it fails to pass) Permits would (then) be state(-)run under federal mandate. Sound like lawyer talk to me. Yes, I'm trying to talk Dave's language. Pointing out yet another example of lawyer elitism. They have their own precise language they think the masses can't understand. They even have Greek phrases to describe some of their principles. But then they have the nerve to think it's kewl to interpret what lay people write while criticizing those who take the writing on it's face value. Can you say elitist snobs? Wilbur Hubbard |
#14
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:15:18 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: It is I who read the language as it is written. That a writer butchers the language and causes it to have a diametrically opposed meaning than he intended is his shortcoming, not mine. Unfortunately, comprehension of the English language is not your forte. Glad I was finally able to straighten you out on that one. That little attempt at misdirection would not serve you well in a court of law. What makes you think it's any more effective here? Wilbur Hubbard |
#15
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
wrote in message
... On 14 Sep 2007 18:15:01 -0500, Dave wrote: On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:38:32 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: "Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. Permits would be state run under federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like Maine where boating is recognized as essential to the tourist economy but some states might see the revenue generated by such a permit system as a quick soak-the-rich fiscal fix." Now, here's why he's still confused. The first paragraph is correct. The second is wrong. Permits would not be run by states under federal mandate - not for recreational boats at least, as this legislation exempts recreational boats. In other words nothing would change for recreational boats. It would be status quo. In other words that federal judge who legislated from the bench would have his hand slapped by congress. And, that's the way it SHOULD be. At least I now see your reading comprehension problem. Those of us with a facility with the language would immediately realize that in Roger's second sentence he was referring to the state of affairs that would exist if the bill does not pass and the court's decision stands. You of course don't fall within the group with a facility with the language. Willie-boy has a small problem. He confuses his fantasies with facts and firmly believes that his crack-pot ideas of vital interest. As someone once wrote: He who speaks, confusing opinions and wishes with facts seems little likely to have either the power or the habit of thoughtful discrimination, which would protect him from mistaking his wishes and opinions, and even his pretenses, for facts. I believe attributed to Poor Richard's Almanac 1733-1758 . Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) Neal has more than one small problem, apparently. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
#16
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:46:11 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:15:18 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: "Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. (If it fails to pass) Permits would (then) be state(-)run under federal mandate. Sound like lawyer talk to me. Yes, I'm trying to talk Dave's language. Pointing out yet another example of lawyer elitism. They have their own precise language they think the masses can't understand. They even have Greek phrases to describe some of their principles. But then they have the nerve to think it's kewl to interpret what lay people write while criticizing those who take the writing on it's face value. Can you say elitist snobs? Wilbur Hubbard Willie, I'm not a lawyer I do have some 20 years worth of studying contracts and other documents pertaining to agreements between companies and the reason that lawyers write the way that they do is not to confuse, rather it is to be so explicit that there is no possibility of confusion. A simple example: You decide you want to buy a barrel of crude oil, the price is in the newspaper every day, right? Now tell me what a barrel of oil is? Right off the top of my head I can think of several different sizes of barrels, 55 gal., 44gal., 200 Ltrs., etc. So, a Lawyer will set forth in the contract a complete description of exactly what a "barrel" of crude oil consists of. This, by the way is not restricted to lawyers as any competent business man will be just as careful that any agreement means exactly what it says and says only what it means. To do otherwise would be incompetent. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
#17
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:23:29 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: wrote in message .. . Willie-boy has a small problem. He confuses his fantasies with facts and firmly believes that his crack-pot ideas of vital interest. I had something to say while you just had to say something. Sorry, but as you can see by my reply to Daffy Dave the Banal Barrister I read the language as it is written. I give the writer credit for being able to write what he means and to do so without confusing the issue to the point where people have to second-guess what he's trying to say. You and Dave can choose to live in your own sloppy word world but, as for me, I'd rather be precise. You like quotes, here's one for you and it'll allow you to understand my first sentence. Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something. -- Plato Wilbur Hubbard in Paradise. Willie, you have got to learn that what a law says, in many cases, is only similar to what actually happens. You read a legal document and you believe that you understand all the words. Then a case goes to court and surprise, surprise, the court interprets the law to mean something different from your understanding of it when you read it. The most common example is the second amendment to the constitution that states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. To most people that read it, it clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Now tell me that you can go out and buy and keep a gun any time and any way you want. Can't! Before you understand the court's position on the 2nd amendment you need to go and read all of the various case law that has resulted from cases referring to the amendment and then perhaps you'll understand how the current government and court system will enforce the law. With a new law not yet ratified you have only the vaguest idea how it will be interpreted. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
#18
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
|
#20
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
HR 2550 may make it illegal to wash your deck
wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:02:45 GMT, (Richard Casady) wrote: On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:11:47 +0700, wrote: A simple example: You decide you want to buy a barrel of crude oil, the price is in the newspaper every day, right? Now tell me what a barrel of oil is? Right off the top of my head I can think of several different sizes of barrels, 55 gal., 44gal., 200 Ltrs., etc. Bad example. The petroleum barrel has been 42 gallons since they used old herring barrels to haul crude in horse drawn wagons. It is a recognized item in the list of internationally accepted weights and measures. My calculator has it as 42 gal per bbl. By the way, a 55 gal drum holds that much so that you get 50 gal liquid capacity plus the necessary expansion space. So it's actually a round number. Casady No, good example as my company worked for just about every international oil company in Indonesia and every one of their contracts defines a "barrel" in the preamble to the contract. By the way is not 42 US gallons, it is 42 US gallons at 60 degrees F at sea level. :-) What's the temperature have to do with anything? I know what you're gonna say. You're gonna say volume decreases with temperature decrease and vice versa. But does that not also hold true for the measuring container? It's the same thought process those dummies who say to loosen the standing rigging for the winter storage period because the stays and shrouds shrink with the cold. But, I suppose they think the aluminum mast doesn't also shrink? Duh! Ya gotta think outta the box, man. Wilbur Hubbard |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
H.R. 2550 still needs support from boaters | General | |||
Need Info to Make Whole Deck Removable -- 2nd Try | Boat Building | |||
Need Info to Make Whole Deck Removable | Boat Building | |||
1994 Pro-line 2550 | General | |||
Chaparral 2550? | General |